Student led, student conducted activity does not count as government establishment of religion.

SgtScott31

10-19-2012, 03:53

It's hard to say. I know a judge just issued an injunction to allow the cheerleaders to keep doing it, but it's likely to go higher. The problem I see is that it is a school-sponsored event on school time. If these were aetheist cheerleaders with big banners citing "No God," how would it be handled?

I like the idea behind what they're trying to do, but then again, if you have others that attend the school under a different religion, should Christianity be forced on them when they're involved in school-sponsored events?

It's a slippery slope now days.

cowboywannabe

10-19-2012, 03:55

Student led, student conducted activity does not count as government establishment of religion.

most idiots dont realize this.

Bren

10-19-2012, 03:57

Student led, student conducted activity does not count as government establishment of religion.

The distinction gets a little fuzzy when the students are at a school event wearing the school's uniforms.

OldCurlyWolf

10-19-2012, 11:28

The distinction gets a little fuzzy when the students are at a school event wearing the school's uniforms.
Not really.

They = the cheerleaders.

1. They pay for the uniforms, not the school.
2. The school does not transport them to any games.
3. They paid for all of the materials for the signs.

The school is not out a dime. It truly is a 1st amendment situation. Legally it is no different than if a parent or a totally uninvolved person put up a sign that does not damage any school property and is not even semi-permanent.

:cool:

Jeff82

10-19-2012, 13:13

4. They are at an event no one is forced to go to.

Bren

10-19-2012, 17:16

Not really.

They = the cheerleaders.

1. They pay for the uniforms, not the school.
2. The school does not transport them to any games.
3. They paid for all of the materials for the signs.

The school is not out a dime. It truly is a 1st amendment situation. Legally it is no different than if a parent or a totally uninvolved person put up a sign that does not damage any school property and is not even semi-permanent.

:cool:

By that definition, auxiliary police shouldn't need search warrants, in places where they are unpaid and buy their own uniforms. That will sure make things easier.

1. They pay for the uniforms, not the school.
2. The school does not transport them to any games.
3. They paid for all of the materials for the signs.

The school is not out a dime. It truly is a 1st amendment situation. Legally it is no different than if a parent or a totally uninvolved person put up a sign that does not damage any school property and is not even semi-permanent.

:cool:

Cheerleaders where I'm from did get transported by school vehicles (buses) to the games just as the football players & marching band.

I don't see the money issue being the primary weight as to whether it's a 1st Amendment protection.

SgtScott31

10-20-2012, 00:00

4. They are at an event no one is forced to go to.

So even though the other students are not required to go to football games, in order for them to attend and enjoy school events that are a huge part of their early adulthood, they have to be buried in someone else's religious beliefs? Where does it stop? Should the band play hymns during halftime?

I personally don't have a problem with what the cheerleaders are doing, but I can see both sides of the argument.

Sam Spade

10-20-2012, 20:19

I don't see the money issue being the primary weight as to whether it's a 1st Amendment protection.

It's central to whether or not the government is "establishing" religion. Here, they're not providing any financial support, they're not providing any authoritative direction. On what basis can it be said that they're establishing religion, or using the coercive power of the state to advance it?

Just like they can't establish it, the .gov can't prevent its free exercise. When the students decide on it, lead it, participate in it and fund it, how can the government tell them no?

SgtScott31

10-21-2012, 03:29

It's central to whether or not the government is "establishing" religion. Here, they're not providing any financial support, they're not providing any authoritative direction. On what basis can it be said that they're establishing religion, or using the coercive power of the state to advance it?

Just like they can't establish it, the .gov can't prevent its free exercise. When the students decide on it, lead it, participate in it and fund it, how can the government tell them no?

It seems you're making the assumption that there's absolutely no money involved on the part of the school in this. I haven't looked very hard, but from the news stories I've read I haven't seen anything that says the cheerleaders are footing the bill on everything. I did a quick search on Westlaw and there are several courts that have held that cheerleading falls under the governmental function umbrella.

Regardless of the financial issue, coerciveness can still be involved. When you have students that cannot participate in school-related activities without being subjected to religious influence, that's when the issues start to arise (at least from what I've seen). We're not dealing with a couple of students wearing a gay/lesbian shirt. We're dealing with a school-sponsored entire cheerleading squad, posting banners at school-sponsored football games who are likely transported by school-funded buses. If it is creating the environment where a student cannot attend a school-related event without being subjected to scripture from a specific religion, those whining about it may have a valid argument in front of a court. Just playing devil's advocate.

Booker

10-23-2012, 19:00

The Constitution states that the government can not meddle in my religion.

It doesn't state that my religion can not meddle in the government.

OldCurlyWolf

10-24-2012, 13:37

By that definition, auxiliary police shouldn't need search warrants, in places where they are unpaid and buy their own uniforms. That will sure make things easier.

It's central to whether or not the government is "establishing" religion. Here, they're not providing any financial support, they're not providing any authoritative direction. On what basis can it be said that they're establishing religion, or using the coercive power of the state to advance it?

Just like they can't establish it, the .gov can't prevent its free exercise. When the students decide on it, lead it, participate in it and fund it, how can the government tell them no?
The emotionally disturbed Christian haters don't need facts. They're driven by acute psychosis.

Bren

10-25-2012, 05:33

Not even close. Try again:rofl:

Can you explain why? A response works better if you actually have a reason for it.

Nobody? It's pretty well established that such religious activities violate the establishment clause when conducted on behalf of a government institution at a govenrment activity. This is both.

SDDL-UP

10-25-2012, 22:53

"religious activities"? Really? I'm not privy to that particular religious practice. I mean I've been to more than a few churches, but never seen people run through a banner before.

It's part of life - that's all. If you don't appreciate it, that's up to you. No one is forcing you to go to the game, no one is going to boo you if you're not a Christian. Would you be so upset if they held up a banner reading "BUY A CHEVY?" Stop having a cow.

Time for a reality check people.

Blast

10-25-2012, 23:20

It would be unconstitutional for the school or any gov. institution to interfere with voluntary religious activity.
As long as the school, if it is a state school, doesn't endorse religious activity, there is no issue.

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

LoadToadBoss

10-31-2012, 13:38

Can you explain why? A response works better if you actually have a reason for it.

Nobody? It's pretty well established that such religious activities violate the establishment clause when conducted on behalf of a government institution at a govenrment activity. This is both.
Really?

Should the government have the power to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights on government property just because others on that property do not like the presence of firearms? They do, of course, but that is not the real issue. Do students have a right to freely express themselves on school property in manner that others do not agree with? Should the government have the power to stifle free speech on government property because some people might get the mis-perception that the government is endorsing that speech? The only concern people have with the signs is that the speech reflects religious thought.

Put your big boy pants on and stop being a wussy. Man up and allow the students the freedom of expression. No one is mandating that anyone agree to the message. And no one really believes the government is endorsing the message. And even if some people find the message offensive, there is no right not to be offended. In a free society we've got to be willing to accept stuff we don't like.

BTW, see my sig line.

Gunhaver

11-04-2012, 20:45

I don't see the harm in this and I would prefer if atheists and secularists didn't so often display the same martyr complex that the god squad does. It hurts our cause.

Since when do Christians use facts? Oh that's right, when it suits them lol

With that being said, as an atheist, I feel the girls are within their rights. No one forces any one to attend the games or read the signs.

"If you don't like what's on the channel, turn it".

ArmoryDoc

11-15-2012, 01:13

Somebody wanna tell me why, if the separation of church and state were so important, why elected officials swear in on religious text ?

Oh, and the words "separation of church and state" aren't even mentioned in the Constitution of the United States. It's a term dreamed up by atheists and liberals trying to get progressive law ahead of Constitutional law.